Hi all,

I have a server at efreeserver. I found their network was down some times yesterday and it's some what slow.

Their CS said "One of the peering partner, AboveNet, had a major router blowout in San Jose, California. This means all customers in the San Francisco region is having the same problem as our company. The engineer at AboveNet are currently working on it. Unless this problem can be fixed in 30 minutes, our carrier plans to reroute traffic to other routers on their network".

Any heard of that? Any one got the network problem at San Francisco region?

yup, right

HE had to route all their traffic though east coast for a few hours because of it

Cogent(who efreeservers pumps their data out last i checked) on the west coast was jacked for 5+ hours yesturday from what I saw.

Originally posted by Dilhole
Cogent(who efreeservers pumps their data out last i checked) on the west coast was jacked for 5+ hours yesturday from what I saw.

you get what you pay for :)

Originally posted by us0r


you get what you pay for :)

And what is that I am paying for?

Originally posted by Dilhole


And what is that I am paying for?

Cogent was "jacked" for 5 hours. You get what you pay for. I'm not saying you -- I'm saying those using Cogent bandwidth. You shouldn’t expect all that great of service using Cogent especially with their prices. I'm sure its great for passing mass amounts of traffic through at a low cost but when it comes to reliability and uptime I would not depend on a $3,000 (or however much it is) line.

so if you are blaming cognet, why is it then that above net was the ones having the problems, it was not bandwidth related at all, it was hardware related :eek: :eek: :eek:

because every other provider has got backup routes if such an event takes place, and i'm sure abovenet just re-routed all of their traffic ..
but Cogent for Cogent this would be far too high costs.
so you still get what you pay for =)

Yep, Cogent probably rerouted its Above.net destined/transited traffic through its other Above.net links in Dallas, or Atlanta, or Washington, DC, or New York. Conversely they might have rerouted that traffic through its Sprint transit line in San Jose.

Get a grip ... Cogent is significantly better then many of you make them out to be. But as far as I am concerned, keep bashing them. That way they will remain a diamond in the rough.

[NG]Owner

Just another thought while we are talking about cogent/Above.

MFN/AboveNet is in deep financial problem ... It even says that the company does not see that it will go through the year 2002 and I think they may indeed file Chapter 11. Hm ... what happen if Cogent buys Above network out? Woa, I can't imagine that ...

cheers,
:beer:

I ran across this just now ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40668-2002Apr24.html

Cogent keeps buying and buying .... Here's a thought ... what if Cogent really is on to something?

[NG]Owner

i honestly hope that yipes and cogent pull through the rough times they're both having at the moment.

and for cogent to buy above. whew. that would be interesting. oh, wait a minute, has abovenet already been bought out?

Ok,

So let me get this straight us0r, an above.net router blows out, and you state "you get what you pay for" because cogent peers with them? Thats excessively ignorant, if you paid $300/mbit for above.net bandwidth, would you be telling people "you get what you paid for"? I sincerely doubt it. And if it was cogent's router that blew out, have you seen what they pack? Cogent uses Cisco 15434 routers (i believe was the model number), go and look them up, they're *top of the line* and amongst the VERY TOP of Cisco's product line, which is a name that most of us here trust. So how does this boil down to "you get what you pay for"? Thats insulting to every Data Center and carrier that peers with Cogent, and i'd love to see your logical justification.

Originally posted by skylab
oh, wait a minute, has abovenet already been bought out?

Above was bought by MFN (Metro Fiber Network). Now MFN is in deep financial trouble, I just wonder how would it be if cogent bought out MFN and hence get the whole Above.net network and probably even more! woa ...

cheers,
:beer:

who exactly is really shelling out the money for all this cogent buying? its certainly not being paid for with $1000/month 100mbit connections.

-Brendan

Originally posted by HRBrendan
who exactly is really shelling out the money for all this cogent buying? its certainly not being paid for with $1000/month 100mbit connections.

-Brendan

Investors who like to live dangerously, and Cisco. Cogent has one helluva big piggy bank from Cisco systems (something like 400 million).

Cisco seems to enjoy pouring money in a hole. I wonder how they account for the equipment financing they do for Cogent? Anyone have an idea? Boy, it'd be interesting if that was considered revenue.

But from what I hear, Chapter 11 usually solves all of these problems such that the companies emerge with zero debt. That kind of stinks, as Cogent is destroying many ISP's business model and rewarding risk takers like LightOne.

Well before everyone start's quoting their balance sheet that they report to wall st. ( which is different from their tax return ). I have had the pleasure of dealing with some of the executives. overall there bussness model works and they don't go into a building unless they can hit a specific entry revenue on the first day in that building and a specific revenue goal for that building. ( I happen to know the numbers but can not disclose it )

they got a ton of cash and the merger will only improve the flow.

mike

Originally posted by ADEhost
Well before everyone start's quoting their balance sheet that they report to wall st. ( which is different from their tax return ).

What it's the point of publish in Wall Street a lower balance than the real?:eek:

Although I know what's the point of say that their bussines its better than what all we think.

Originally posted by Jedito


What it's the point of publish in Wall Street a lower balance than the real?:eek:

Although I know what's the point of say that their bussines its better than what all we think.

LOL thanks for the laugh. No the point is that people read these number all the time and quote them like they spent 20 years reading them ( I can safely say that from 1976 till 1994 I read the WSJ everyday ) and it's common knowledge ( at least to those that worked on the street back in the day ) that the numbers reported have very little to do with the number's to the IRS.

so you have to start reading foot notes and trying to figure out all sort of weird stuff.

IE: GE, for years I looked at their numbers and loved them until one day I spent 10 minutes on there balence sheet. boy talk about smooth earnings, parking revenue to the future and keeping the growth of earning stready. good accountants I would say. proved to me that Jack W. wanted to stay alway with good numbers. Chrysler was another one back in 1994 they built a huge downturn money ( war ) chest ( something like 3 -4 billion ) how did they park that cash was one of the balence sheet tricks I learned to look for when a company would be geting ready for buying something ( again it might have been used for buy backs or takeovers )

your start learning to read the numbers when you start shorting stocks. that's when it's get's interesting. cogent looks bad but they got the right idea's and over a long term it " seem " to be a solid bet with staying power.

mike

I dont recall the source but I remember reading that cogent lost about $64 per share last quarter. Doesnt that mean that if you paid the $2.60 for a share of cogent, you would in effect be purchasing $64 in debt 4 times a year for the bargain basement price of $2.60? I'm well aware that you can't lose more than your initial investment, but to look at that with any hopes of seeing a profit (and im talking real profit... earnings distributed through dividends... and the reason most companies actually go into and in this case stay in business) off of that or any sort of related investment?

-Brendan

Originally posted by ADEhost

they got a ton of cash and the merger will only improve the flow.

mike
which merger are you talking of now?
any new one in the bush? :D

greets

Yes, they bought parts of OnSite Access a few days ago, link (http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020424/200204241115000718_1.html). They're on a shopping spree :)

Heh, that $64 loss per $2.50 share is about the same ratio as the 100Mbps for $1,000 to T1 for $1500.

just to get some things in the correct orders

here are some numbers

dilututed earings per share is about -32.00 to - 36.00 but you won't see that in most reports.

the perfered stock is rarely mentioned unless your looking for it.

outlays ware in the range of 115 million for purchases and investment.

NOTE: I hold no position in this stock as of this date so I am unbias.

Mike

So would you recommend this equity? No liability required, just curious as to different folks' tollerance for risk.

DN